Epic: Ann Coulter and John Stossel duke it out

posted at 12:41 pm on February 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Outspoken firebrand conservative Ann Coulter versus outspoken firebrand libertarian John Stossel? …I love it. It’s like the two dueling voices of my innermost moral-political psyche having it out with verbal fisticuffs in an ideological boxing match.

My instincts tend to lean pretty libertarian on a lot of things (with a huge, resounding exception when it comes to foreign policy and security issues), and I agree with the Stossel camp that no way is it the federal government’s business to try to engineer society in any shape, manner, or form beyond enforcing contracts and common defense — but as Ann Coulter points out, however, our huge ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and welfare state mean that sometimes that simply and unfortunately is not the reality of the world in which we all live.

Anyhow, I’m going to let what I know are the many hardcore libertarians and staunch conservatives in the audience have fun with this one in the comments, but I think these are fantastic debates to have while we’re all talking anyway about all of the “soul searching” the Republican party needs to do, and the many areas in which conservatives and libertarians can mesh their ideas.

“We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”

Stossel then asked: “Why can’t gays get married?” …

“This is another one where you’re just sucking up to liberals when there are big fights,” Coulter explained.

“No, we believe the individual should be left alone,” Stossel shot back. …

“First of all, for alleged individualists, you’re very mob-like,” Coulter snarked. “Second of all, it is my business because we are living in a welfare state … Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

You know, if the GOP began embracing some Libertarian principles, I could see the party eventually taking back much of the west, and even having a shot at CA. I know a lot of people who vote Democrat here in CA because of the party’s stance on social issues, and at the same time they realize that the government needs some serious shrinking and that the Democrats have no intention of doing that.

You either know nothing of him or know nothing of them. These little churches know their position, and they have a very libertarian bent because of it. They know they lose if there ever is a state sponsored religion. They will tell you you’re going to hell, but they don’t entertain the idea of pursuing legislation as a means to achieve their goals.

I see nothing wrong with that situation. As long as nobody’s rights are being impacted by the actions of others in that scenario it sounds like a win to me. The 180 of that scenario doesn’t sound so good though.

Federalism & allowing the states to decide upon matters – whether I’d vote ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ – is, though, IMO. A liberal would want Obama or the USSC to make gay marriage legal via fiat; libertarians don’t want the gov’t to have a single word to say on the matter. I’m sure most social conservatives would be against civil unions decided by local governments, but that POLITICAL approach isn’t liberal nor is it libertarian (much).

Thus, the nuclear family unit, with the foundation of a marriage, stays intact. Gays, or people who don’t want to be married, can have a contractual agreement to provide for benefits via a civil union agreement (although most straights fall under the auspices of a common law marriage, anyway), which is not a marriage.

ah, so coulter embraces our socialist state and “that’s just how it is” status quo mentality. how typical of a republican.

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Actually she wanted a drastic reduction in the welfare state and the size of government and the libertarians wanted their goodies right now regardless of the effect on others or who has to pay for the libertarian moochers lifestyle.

Do you think morality can be compartmentalized? Is it possible to have an honest ho? Do you think you can leave your wallet lying on the night stand while you go to the john? That is the crux of the society that you imagine.

You know, if the GOP began embracing some Libertarian principles, I could see the party eventually taking back much of the west, and even having a shot at CA.

Thanks for the laughs.

Yeah, the place that just voted for more taxes, the place where the nurses union put the final nails in Gov Arnold’s political coffin, the place where the state deficit is the size of a third world economy – and the citizens want more spending – the place where DiFi & Barbara Boxer are re-elected in landslides despite refusing to even participate in debates (all they need is the D after their names), could embrace the GOP if they only supported gay marriage (which CA voters rejected, btw) & a few other libertarian principles.

Sorry, but CA is the west coast equivalent of New York. Find a way to carve off Berkeley, LA & San Fran into the pacific & you might have a better argument. But, CA is liberal looneyville, right now. If there’s a crazy proggie idea, chances are it originated in Califreakingfornia.

Actually she wanted a drastic reduction in the welfare state and the size of government and the libertarians wanted their goodies right now regardless of the effect on others or who has to pay for the libertarian moochers lifestyle.

Not that I have ever seen. They vote for Obama and talk about pot and gays. That is their priority and platitudes are what we get regarding economics. When the choice is big government Obama possibly legalizing pot, they choose pot.

The response was self centered because it centered on one’s self and not the overall implications of the issue at hand, just as the questioners did with Ann.

I don’t see a distinction justifying governmental non-recognition of same-sex marital agreements.

The distinction is that in a same sex “marital” agreement, the two parties are not morally bound to each other and the children they produce which is the normal and long established condition of marriage.

I know it is popular to pretend that same sex couples have children, but the reality is they do not and cannot without some outside help. The great majority of children are created and raised by and within the union of a man and a woman.

It is what it is and it matters not if the first recognition of the importance of monogamous marriage was religiously motivated. The truth of its impact on society is real and as “states and countries and governments” evolved, marriage was always upheld and seen as a positive contribution to society.

Again, I believe if same sex couples wish to have a public witness to their relationship, so be it. If the government wishes to allow for them to have civil contracts, that the government would then enforce, so be it. But it is not and cannot be marriage and the move to pretend it is, is not out of societal concern, but selfish interests.

None of the kids that got to ask questions talked about the welfare state. They asked about drugs and gay marriage. They got to choose the topics.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:22 PM

they got to ask like, 5 questions… you are really going to assume that with only 5 questions, because they didn’t ask about the welfare state, that they are for welfare? ummm….

the point here is some of the topics are mutually INCLUSIVE. there are many topics that both libertarians and republicans can agree on, like less government intervention and welfare. to say that a sample of 5 questions about TOPICS THAT WERE DISCUSSED and for them not to mention welfare therefore they are somehow for welfare state is pretty silly.

Do you think morality can be compartmentalized? Is it possible to have an honest ho? Do you think you can leave your wallet lying on the night stand while you go to the john? That is the crux of the society that you imagine.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM

So hookers = thieves ?

Good to see your thoughts on morality and how it leads to instant judgement. I suppose if one does not see hooking as immoral that would separate two peoples’ thoughts on the whole matter.

Not that I have ever seen. They vote for Obama and talk about pot and gays. That is their priority and platitudes are what we get regarding economics. When the choice is big government Obama possibly legalizing pot, they choose pot.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 4:22 PM

perhaps in your very small sample of libertarian experiences, this applies for you, but i would certainly not consider your opinion/experience the norm.

the point here is some of the topics are mutually INCLUSIVE. there are many topics that both libertarians and republicans can agree on, like less government intervention and welfare. to say that a sample of 5 questions about TOPICS THAT WERE DISCUSSED and for them not to mention welfare therefore they are somehow for welfare state is pretty silly.

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Neither Coulter nor I suggested they support the welfare state. We are saying that most Libertarians are cowards and only wish to discuss the issues that are liberal approved. That’s why the young and hip Libertarians are only interested in gay marriage and drugs. The young people that got to ask questions supported assertion.

Yeah, the place that just voted for more taxes, the place where the nurses union put the final nails in Gov Arnold’s political coffin, the place where the state deficit is the size of a third world economy – and the citizens want more spending – the place where DiFi & Barbara Boxer are re-elected in landslides despite refusing to even participate in debates (all they need is the D after their names), could embrace the GOP if they only supported gay marriage (which CA voters rejected, btw) & a few other libertarian principles.

Sorry, but CA is the west coast equivalent of New York. Find a way to carve off Berkeley, LA & San Fran into the pacific & you might have a better argument. But, CA is liberal looneyville, right now. If there’s a crazy proggie idea, chances are it originated in Califreakingfornia.

Cam Winston on February 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I said that they’d have a shot at CA, not that they’d win it right away. Keep in mind that this is the state that produced Ronald Reagan. Sure it’d take time, but my gut tells me that in time, enough of my fellows will eventually get so sick of CA’s version of liberalism that things can change for the better.

Neither Coulter nor I suggested they support the welfare state. We are saying that most Libertarians are cowards and only wish to discuss the issues that are liberal approved. That’s why the young and hip Libertarians are only interested in gay marriage and drugs. The young people that got to ask questions supported assertion.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

lol @ liberal approved. having freedom to do what you want i guess is now a liberal idea. great.

No, it’s not effecting my moral choices. Is it yours? So if abortions are free, you’re going to get an abortion? If you think birth control is immoral, are you going to start taking it anyway because it’s “free”?

My problem with Obamacare is it’s bad public policy that will destroy private health care, it’s certainly not because I’m afraid it’s going to make me or America immoral. Those choices are made by the individual.

Social conservatives just want politicians to talk about abstract moral issues that they really have no control over.

Though I *used* to appreciate Coulter *much* more before she went total-RINO with her Romney rationalizations, I must applaud her for her fundamental b*tch-slap response to Libertarian folly, as presented here by Stossel.

Yeah, yeah, *that’s the ticket*…*focus* on dope-life and homo-love……as if those were the critical things in life for most Americans these days – *particularly* in context of the totalitarian tendencies of the current administration.

Just like Leftists…taking the easy way out makes one feel oh-so-*more*-righteous than having to address the priorities of reality.

And if the same “conservatives” don’t want the government to pay for gay marriage, then they can take the common sense approach and support efforts to make the government’s footprint on private relationships as small as possible.

This argument is absurd. If conservatives don’t want the government to pay to administer drivers licenses for the blind, then they can take the common sense approach and just dispense with licensing drivers entirely? You DID presuppose the lack of any legitimate interest for the license to exist. Res ipsa loquitur.

The government arguably has a “legitimate interest” in all sorts of things, such as restricting marriage and even constitutionally enshrined rights, but that doesn’t mean that we should just allow the government a free hand in something merely because we can cite a government interest.

It’s important you actually understand the definition of legitimate. You obviously don’t or you wouldn’t conflate “restricting marriage” and “constitutionally enshrined rights” as equally legitimate interests. You see unlike “restricting marriage,” that whole “general welfare” is actually constitutionally enshrined as well, which is what makes it a legitimate interest. Nothing “arguable” about it. I’m not citing some random bureaucrat’s garden variety interest, I’m citing the constitution. Ipso Facto, Legitimate Enumerated Powers, not a “free hand” to license any kind of relationship willy-nilly, which is ironically what you were arguing for until you unintentionally smacked yourself down with that passage.

In any event, we can turn this premise on its head. An argument can be made that the government has a significant interest in passing regulations involving gay marriage.

It would also help if you understood what the premise WAS before you attempted to contradict it. Significant does not equal legitimate, which makes this whole non-sequitur absurd. No matter how many regulations are passed or not passed concerning gay coupling, those regulations would by definition not further normalizing stable nuclear families capable of producing children. You’re essentially arguing that we should issue dog licenses to cat owners just because they’re jealous of not being licensed, and completely ignoring WHY that license exists and WHY it’s worth spending the funds to administer and WHY the requirements for it are what they are.

As a matter of efficiency, “someone of your complementary gender” is the most broad requirement we can have that still serves to further the purpose of the license without imposing mandates or oppressive government intrusion into private relationships. Please explain how you think doing away with marriage licensing will improve the odds that children are born into stable nuclear families that produce upstanding citizens. Or conversely, explain how micromanaging gay marriage licenses will garner that same desired effect. That’s the false choice you just created, so do tell us why either of those would work.

After all, if two people of the same sex live together in an intimate relationship for an extended period of time, it is only “natural” for certain rights and obligations to attach as a result. This becomes especially true if they become adoptive parents to each others’ children.

No, we don’t have an intimacy-level requirement, nor a time-spent-together requirement, nor a promise-to-adopt-or-have-kids requirement. But I find it comical that gay marriage proponents use what they view as a lack of sufficient granular specificity to then turn around and argue for dispensing with having any rational standard whatsoever.

I said that they’d have a shot at CA, not that they’d win it right away. Keep in mind that this is the state that produced Ronald Reagan.

Around the same time, Georgia was producing Jimmy Carter, so the changes in the respective populaces have been rather stark. Although I don’t share your optimism, I hope you are the one that is right & I’m the one that is wrong.

lol @ liberal approved. having freedom to do what you want i guess is now a liberal idea. great.

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

No, but there are huge government, you know that thing libertarians hate, road blocks to those goals. It’s not fair to saddle the welfare state with your drug dependency, but you don’t want to talk about the welfare state. You only want to talk about drugs. You goal is gay marriage, but you won’t take the argument to remove government completely from marriage. You’re only interested in government sponsored marriage for gays. You won’t take on the government in any way shape or form because liberals won’t approve.

Please Acid-Ann Coulter is not a conservative. Her crush on RINO’s (Christie/Mr Etch-a-sketch) and her open assault Sarah Palin (twice) have told this observer that she more correctly could have the label-“Master Book Salesperson.”

None of the kids that got to ask questions talked about the welfare state. They asked about drugs and gay marriage. They got to choose the topics.

That’s why, like Ann, I’m highly suspicious of these Libertarians. An employer’s right to choose an all straight white male Christian (or gay black female atheist) workforce is a far more important and crucial issue than whether 3% of the population get to call their bonds marriage or civil union. But when do Libertarians ever talk about it?

The response was self centered because it centered on one’s self and not the overall implications of the issue at hand, just as the questioners did with Ann.

Not sure what you mean, I wasn’t centering it on myself. In any event.

The distinction is that in a same sex “marital” agreement, the two parties are not morally bound to each other and the children they produce which is the normal and long established condition of marriage.

I know it is popular to pretend that same sex couples have children, but the reality is they do not and cannot without some outside help. The great majority of children are created and raised by and within the union of a man and a woman.

It is what it is and it matters not if the first recognition of the importance of monogamous marriage was religiously motivated. The truth of its impact on society is real and as “states and countries and governments” evolved, marriage was always upheld and seen as a positive contribution to society.

Again, I believe if same sex couples wish to have a public witness to their relationship, so be it. If the government wishes to allow for them to have civil contracts, that the government would then enforce, so be it. But it is not and cannot be marriage and the move to pretend it is, is not out of societal concern, but selfish interests.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Based on what do you say that they would not be morally bound to themselves and their children? Sounds conclusory too me. Also, while I agree that gays can’t have children “without outside help”, I’d add that the same can easily be said about sterile people, and we don’t ban them from marrying. And while a “great majority of children are created and raised by and within the union of a man and a woman”, that alone is not sufficient to say that this is the way it must always be. In a free society, you need more than this to prohibit something. Finally, while I absolutely agree that marriages are of societal concern, this alone is also not a reason to ban gay marriage. Gun ownership is also of societal concern, but we don’t ban that. Nor do we ban car ownership, even though we have a societal interest in regulating it.

morality is such a heavy/biased/opinionated topic, but ok, give me one example…

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

The issue of legalization of marijuana, to take a particularly silly example. The argument from a Libertarian will be heavily concentrated along the lines of individual liberty whereas on the Conservative side it will be heavily influenced by the moral considerations such as the effects on the individual’s mentality, social behavior, social effects of loosening cultural restrictions on such behavior, etc. in other words, moral considerations.

No, but there are huge government, you know that thing libertarians hate, road blocks to those goals. It’s not fair to saddle the welfare state with your drug dependency, but you don’t want to talk about the welfare state. You only want to talk about drugs. You goal is gay marriage, but you won’t take the argument to remove government completely from marriage. You’re only interested in government sponsored marriage for gays. You won’t take on the government in any way shape or form because liberals won’t approve.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:41 PM

i don’t want to talk about the welfare state, except i did. wow! can you believe it!?!? let’s shut down the welfare state! you heard it here folks, the first libertarian to ever think about that! and let’s make the government smaller and shut down all these dumb programs they have! again, you heard it here, the first libertarian to say that we aren’t just about drugs and gay marriage!!!!
—
maybe all your taking away from the video is that they wanted to talk about drugs. that would be like me saying all that republicans want to talk about is war, because that’s all i heard coulter talk about and how it’s ok to kill our people and their people over wmd’s that never existed.

This argument is absurd. If conservatives don’t want the government to pay to administer drivers licenses for the blind, then they can take the common sense approach and just dispense with licensing drivers entirely? You DID presuppose the lack of any legitimate interest for the license to exist. Res ipsa loquitur.

The issue of legalization of marijuana, to take a particularly silly example. The argument from a Libertarian will be heavily concentrated along the lines of individual liberty whereas on the Conservative side it will be heavily influenced by the moral considerations such as the effects on the individual’s mentality, social behavior, social effects of loosening cultural restrictions on such behavior, etc. in other words, moral considerations.

The issue of legalization of marijuana, to take a particularly silly example. The argument from a Libertarian will be heavily concentrated along the lines of individual liberty whereas on the Conservative side it will be heavily influenced by the moral considerations such as the effects on the individual’s mentality, social behavior, social effects of loosening cultural restrictions on such behavior, etc. in other words, moral considerations.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I believe that drug use has all the social ills that you claim, but have you thought about why some people use drugs and others do not? Is it because some won’t break the law, purely because it’s a law? I’ll bet those dogooders speed, or maybe it’s because it’s socially unacceptable. I think it’s because it’s socially unacceptable, and has little to do with whether it’s legal or not. This means our real fight is in the shaping of the culture and not legislation.

It is incontrovertible that Libertarians do not factor morality into their political calculus whereas Conservatives do.

Show me where I’m wrong.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

You’re out of your mind. Freedom and individual responsibility requires a set of personal ethics. No one under 18, and you can’t hurt anyone in your dealings. Where we draw the line is being a bunch of self-righteous prigs who want the government to enforce morality, which is NO DIFFERENT than the far left. You’re nanny staters.

i don’t want to talk about the welfare state, except i did. wow! can you believe it!?!? let’s shut down the welfare state! you heard it here folks, the first libertarian to ever think about that! and let’s make the government smaller and shut down all these dumb programs they have! again, you heard it here, the first libertarian to say that we aren’t just about drugs and gay marriage!!!!

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 4:47 PM

You need to be preaching to your choir before you start preaching to us. If the kids had got up there and said they weren’t interested in those social issues and wanted to talk about the outrageous government spending then you’d have a point, but they didn’t and you don’t.

You know, if the GOP began embracing some Libertarian principles, I could see the party eventually taking back much of the west, and even having a shot at CA.

Yeah, the place that just voted for more taxes, the place where the nurses union put the final nails in Gov Arnold’s political coffin, the place where the state deficit is the size of a third world economy – and the citizens want more spending – the place where DiFi & Barbara Boxer are re-elected in landslides despite refusing to even participate in debates (all they need is the D after their names), could embrace the GOP if they only supported gay marriage (which CA voters rejected, btw) & a few other libertarian principles.

You need to be preaching to your choir before you start preaching to us. If the kids had got up there and said they weren’t interested in those social issues and wanted to talk about the outrageous government spending then you’d have a point, but they didn’t and you don’t.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:56 PM

yes, it’s very, very, very fair to assume because they had only 3 questions to ask about the 3 topics stossel brought up that they are not for or against anything else other than what you claim they are.

So, I am going to assume that >90% of people are are against income redistribution? correct? Then why would it be OK, for our government to give out foreign aid? Isn’t that redistributing our money to money to governments in other countries?

yes, it’s very, very, very fair to assume because they had only 3 questions to ask about the 3 topics stossel brought up that they are not for or against anything else other than what you claim they are.

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 5:01 PM

They had one shot at having their views heard on national TV and what did they choose to talk about????? You’d think that at least one of them would attempt to get at that really big issue, but nope.

One could make the argument that me, as a taxpayer, subsidize other people’s poor choices in how much alcohol they drink and how much fatty food they eat. Those are not outlawed though. In fact, the left is trying to regulate what we eat and how much soda we can drink. Many on this site are not OK with that and call them nanny stater’s (as well they should)? What’s the difference with regard to pot?

If alcohol is legal, but our tax dollars to to AA, shelters for victims of alcoholism, and for the healthcare of alcoholics (liver disease due to alcoholism among medicaid patients has skyrocketed, they get liver transplants and drink the new livers up too). By that logic alcohol should be illegal.

Look, there is no such thing as a “gay” marriage. Marriage does not need a qualifier. For literally thousands of years, in western civilizations, marriage has been defined as one man and one woman. The homosexual movement is just a modern take on good old fashioned hedonism. Which is basically human beings acting in the most base and selfish manner.
Modern humans have been around from between 100,000 to 500,000 years. Only maybe 4-6 thousand years ago did we nail down what we now call “traditional” values. That’s after trying every other form of relations with human, animal, vegetable and mineral. It took us between 96,000 and 496,000 years to figure that out. We know for an undisputed undeniable scientific fact that married people live longer healthier and happier lives than any other combination of humans.
But no, we’re supposed to throw out thousands of years of proof, and upend our society so that a mentally ill minority can feel better about themselves? Really? Instead of helping these people, we’re going to enable their self-destructive behavior? Oh yeah, really bad things happen when you force together organs that did not evolve to go together, together.
No its time to stand up for “traditional” values. They’re the time tested, reality tested, evolved social construct. Why regress to base hedonism? Why devolve? And its not just homosexuality, its narcissism and hedonism in general. When kids do drugs, they permanently damage their brains, which haven’t even fully developed yet. When they have unwed sex and offspring, they doom themselves and their children to poverty.

This argument is absurd. If conservatives don’t want the government to pay to administer drivers licenses for the blind, then they can take the common sense approach and just dispense with licensing drivers entirely? You DID presuppose the lack of any legitimate interest for the license to exist. Res ipsa loquitur.

Wrong, I never said that nor presupposed a lack of legitimate interest for a license to exist.

It’s important you actually understand the definition of legitimate. You obviously don’t or you wouldn’t conflate “restricting marriage” and “constitutionally enshrined rights” as equally legitimate interests. You see unlike “restricting marriage,” that whole “general welfare” is actually constitutionally enshrined as well, which is what makes it a legitimate interest. Nothing “arguable” about it. I’m not citing some random bureaucrat’s garden variety interest, I’m citing the constitution. Ipso Facto, Legitimate Enumerated Powers, not a “free hand” to license any kind of relationship willy-nilly, which is ironically what you were arguing for until you unintentionally smacked yourself down with that passage.

OK point taken about constitutional rights. (Based on your response, you use the term “legitimate” to mean “lawful.) But the government does have a legitimate interest in limiting car ownership, in light of dangers posed by the use of cars. That said, we accept that a balance approach can be taken in doing so rather than prohibiting all car ownership, which would be lawful, or even restricting entire non-criminal classes of people (with the exception of minors) simply because there is a legitimate governmental interest. I don’t believe that, on balance, we need to restrict an entire class of people from marrying each other, and citing the mere existence of a legitimate government interest is not sufficient to make it good policy.

It would also help if you understood what the premise WAS before you attempted to contradict it. Significant does not equal legitimate, which makes this whole non-sequitur absurd. No matter how many regulations are passed or not passed concerning gay coupling, those regulations would by definition not further normalizing stable nuclear families capable of producing children. You’re essentially arguing that we should issue dog licenses to cat owners just because they’re jealous of not being licensed, and completely ignoring WHY that license exists and WHY it’s worth spending the funds to administer and WHY the requirements for it are what they are.

I don’t agree that we should limit marriage only to those who are able to produce children. Putting aside the fact that most people don’t believe we should prevent willfully childless couples from marrying, your approach would disqualify sterile couples from marrying. As far as characterizing my position as “essentially arguing that we should issue dog licences to cat owners just because they’re jealous of not being licensed”, that’s just silly. We’re not talking about pet ownership here, and I don’t believe that the analogy is appropriate.

As a matter of efficiency, “someone of your complementary gender” is the most broad requirement we can have that still serves to further the purpose of the license without imposing mandates or oppressive government intrusion into private relationships. Please explain how you think doing away with marriage licensing will improve the odds that children are born into stable nuclear families that produce upstanding citizens. Or conversely, explain how micromanaging gay marriage licenses will garner that same desired effect. That’s the false choice you just created, so do tell us why either of those would work.

I never said that doing away with the licensing requirement will improve the odds that children are born into stable nuclear families that produce upstanding citizens, so I’m not sure why you need me to justify a position I don’t hold. In any event, issues of parenting are best left to parents rather than government licensing programs. I also don’t think that we should micromanage gay marriages. I’m not sure what, if anything, I said that led you to believe that we should.

No, we don’t have an intimacy-level requirement, nor a time-spent-together requirement, nor a promise-to-adopt-or-have-kids requirement. But I find it comical that gay marriage proponents use what they view as a lack of sufficient granular specificity to then turn around and argue for dispensing with having any rational standard whatsoever.

I’d find it comical too, if in fact I ever said we should institute those requirements. I’m pretty sure that I also didn’t say that we should “dispense with having any rational standard whatsoever.” Seems like a straw man to me.

This argument is absurd. If conservatives don’t want the government to pay to administer drivers licenses for the blind, then they can take the common sense approach and just dispense with licensing drivers entirely? You DID presuppose the lack of any legitimate interest for the license to exist. Res ipsa loquitur.

Wrong.

Make up your mind. Does licensing marriages serve a legitimate interest or not?

If not, then I was right, and you presupposed the lack of a legitimate interest.
If you admit it does serve a legitimate interest, then your notion that governments should just arbitrarily not pursue their legitimate interests is just spouting nonsense.

This means our real fight is in the shaping of the culture and not legislation.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Well, that’s my point as well, but since we’ve swerved onto the discussion of legislation, some here think that when we advocate factoring morality into the calculations that we’re advocating some form of theocracy.

No, what we are saying is that if you exclude morality from the discussion, you’re already defeated.

Make up your mind. Does licensing marriages serve a legitimate interest or not?

If not, then I was right, and you presupposed the lack of a legitimate interest.
If you admit it does serve a legitimate interest, then your notion that governments should just arbitrarily not pursue their legitimate interests is just spouting nonsense.

CapnObvious on February 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Ignore that post and respond to the later one if you like. As I stated, I made a submission mistake on my earlier message.

good thing that non-libertarians are making “moral” laws against alcohol and anything else that you listed that could be considered detrimental to society in any way. oh wait…

kastor on February 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

kastor, again, you are missing the point. The conservative position isn’t that we can pass laws that will control morality but that our laws are INFORMED by moral considerations. Understand?

Again, the Liberals understand this very well. And they don’t quibble over whether or not their laws are effectively diluting the moral environment but their culture is not. They concentrate on doing BOTH at the same time.

Legalizing pot will be similar to alcohol, both are drugs. The problem is when drunk you cannot control a motor vehicle properly the same with pot when you are high. To think otherwise is denying the facts.

Gays should be able to have a union with the same benefits as a marriage but no children.

I think these are fantastic debates to have while we’re all talking anyway about all of the “soul searching” the Republican party needs to do, and the many areas in which conservatives and libertarians can mesh their ideas.

Wouldn’t be nice if these debates were the Republican party’s post election “soul searching,” rather than a death struggle against the Rove-DeLay-Bush-Lott wing’s attempt to reassert their dominance over the party?

One impression I got from this was how remarkably unaware the libertarian audience seemed about the nature of the Left. Naive? Uninformed?

rrpjr on February 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I wouldn’t say that a different view, opinion, or idea means people are naive/misinformed. Those on the left strategically pushing their agenda are understood. As long as those pushing the agenda have a base that consists of the following they will win:

1. Blacks and Hispanics

2. People who are in need of or just plain want handouts

3. Idiots that don’t understand or choose to ignore the fact that someday the money will dry up

4. People who only catch the headlines and therefore catch the smears on us done by the left (and the left is good at it)

You’re out of your mind. Freedom and individual responsibility requires a set of personal ethics. No one under 18, and you can’t hurt anyone in your dealings. Where we draw the line is being a bunch of self-righteous prigs who want the government to enforce morality, which is NO DIFFERENT than the far left. You’re nanny staters.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM

John, prior to the late 1960’s all of our laws, our customs, and our social mores were informed by and derived from a Biblical perspective on reality. That was where most people derived their “personal ethics”. No, everyone wasn’t a Christian but it was understood that there are moral absolutes and that there were consequences for violating them. That awareness came about from centuries of social evolution in Western Civilization brought about through familiarization with the Biblical perspective.

It has taken less than two generations to undermine what has taken centuries to develop.

You know, if the GOP began embracing some Libertarian principles, I could see the party eventually taking back much of the west, and even having a shot at CA. I know a lot of people who vote Democrat here in CA because of the party’s stance on social issues, and at the same time they realize that the government needs some serious shrinking and that the Democrats have no intention of doing that.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

So on the one hand these people don’t like the GOP stance on gay marriage (even though it allows for each state to decide on their own, I’d also note that prop 8 passed in CA because of the Obama voter surge) but on the other the Democrats are robbing the future blind, bankrupting our country and squeezing the economy but they choose gay marriage over the future of the country?

I love the thoughtful young Libertarians…great independence and logic. Alas…there are about six of them in the U.S. The rest are the idiot libertardians that Coulter mocks and that fill the think tanks in D.C. They are liberals much more than Libertarians, and hate conservatives more than they like freedom.

Coulter is a nitwit. Her argument against gay marriage is that she has to pay for it. Really?

She mentioned health care, unemployment, housing and food that she has to “pay for” for others. How is that relevant to gay marriage?

The problem is the sex of who’s getting married. The problem is the government allows benefits to married people that are not available to single people.

Make government marriage neutral.

ButterflyDragon on February 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I believe her point is that liberals grow government into a
nanny state (rinos too – however, that is redundant), then when
there are big issues that are strangling our freedom and ruining
our economy, the liberals ask “what about growing pot?”, “what
about marriage for gays”; what’s next, marriage for horses?

My opinion is NO marriage for gays; a civil union should
suffice. And I agree their civil union should qualify them for the
same benefits as married hetrosexual couples.

Also, no legalization of pot. We are supposed to eat kale and
drink coconut water, no 64 oz. colas, and then allow ourselves
to be in a brain fog from smoking that junk. Any medical
professional will tell you that pot is a gateway drug to other
even more dangerous situations; coke, meth, whatever.

Besides that, does anyone see the irony with the freaky anti
smoking crowd pushing for the legalization of pot? If you smoked
a cigarette within 20 feet of them they would call the cops.

So on the one hand these people don’t like the GOP stance on gay marriage (even though it allows for each state to decide on their own, I’d also note that prop 8 passed in CA because of the Obama voter surge) but on the other the Democrats are robbing the future blind, bankrupting our country and squeezing the economy but they choose gay marriage over the future of the country?

gwelf on February 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Indeed, if you have an idea of how to rally Californians behind the notion that government should act in a fiscally responsible but limited manner, I’m certainly open to suggestions.

I was referring to the moment the audience jeers when Coulter asserts that liberals wish to undermine the family. If this is a “different” view it is also wrong and anti-historical, and young college-educated liberatarians should know better.